zeldafandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:Enhanced Remakes
:I agree with what TM and Oni are saying. Trying to detail a remake's differences, development, reception, etc., just gets to be too cluttered if you do it in the general page for that game (do we make a subsection under OoT reception for both MQ and 3DS?). It seems like it'd be much more organized/clear to have a simple explanation of the remakes under the main page, linking to a separate page for the remake itself, which is free to talk about it in detail without cluttering up the main page. As people were saying, we don't have to give it a story section and whatnot, just make it clear it's a remake of the original and link to the original's page.--[[User:Fierce Deku|'Fierce']][[User talk:Fierce Deku|'Deku']] 22:36, March 6, 2011 (UTC) but OOT3d has already been shown to completely remake the graphics and control scheme. What if it adds new items/dungeons? I think a separate page is necessary for OOT3d if it has those changes.--Hylianhero777 (talk) 20:34, March 8, 2011 (UTC) :Actually, oftentimes remakes expand on the original and add new content. If OOT3D does add new dungeons that don't replace old ones, or new items, that would be normal. Look at REmake or HG/SS.--Hylianhero777 (talk) 21:27, March 10, 2011 (UTC) :The Master Quest wasn't included in the original game but is in the 3DS remake. For all we know at this point, that could be the "new challenges" they are talking about. --Birdman5589 (talk) 14:01, April 13, 2011 (UTC) I hope its something new. While this is active again might I suggest a vote to see how many pepople still agree and disagree with the idea? Oni Link 15:23, April 13, 2011 (UTC) :To see who agree in creating different pages, a page only to indicate the changes in version, no change, or 3D yes DX no, at least a preliminar poll should help. —'TheNewSheik' 21:42, July 29, 2011 (UTC) ::That's three supports for making a voting section. The motion passes. If I forgot a game that someone thinks should have its own page, add it.--[[User:Fierce Deku|'Fierce']][[User talk:Fierce Deku|'Deku']] 23:09, July 29, 2011 (UTC) Votes to Give Link's Awakening DX its Own Page : : This is my weakest support, but I think that any significantly remade game should count. There's enough to say that it could make a page of it's own without looking small.--[[User:Fierce Deku|'Fierce']][[User talk:Fierce Deku|'Deku']] 23:09, July 29, 2011 (UTC) : : New dungeons, new enemies, new characters, new items, new page Oni Link 23:20, July 29, 2011 (UTC) : : Per Oni's vote -'Minish Link' 23:56, July 29, 2011 (UTC) : : This is the remake I know the least about, but from what I've read, it seems distinct enough for it's own page. Jedimasterlink (talk) 01:07, July 30, 2011 (UTC) : : Any differences pertaining to the remake as a whole can easily be covered in a section. Anything relating to a particular item, character, or location can be covered on its corresponding page. Jedimasterlink (talk) 17:06, March 30, 2012 (UTC) : : The additions are small enough to be covered in a section. There is absolutely no need for a separate page. If this needs its own page then each enemy needs its own page for each different game appearance. I am not exaggerating with that at all. --Birdman5589 (talk) 03:35, July 30, 2011 (UTC) : : Having never played Link's Awakening or Link's Awakening DX, I cannot truly be sure if the differences are large or distinct enough to earn a separate page. - McGillivray227 03:46, July 30, 2011 (UTC) : : The additions (IIRC) consist of 1 new dungeon, 2 new items (although it's arguable that they're one item given how similar they are and the fact you can only have one at a time) and some photos. A separate page would either be 95% identical to the original article or, if it only covered the changes, incredibly short.Eyeball226 (talk) 04:17, July 30, 2011 (UTC) : : From what I've read, there really isn't that much of an addition. --''Jäzz '' 12:11, July 30, 2011 (UTC) : : No. --AuronKaizer ''' 15:23, August 4, 2011 (UTC) : I do see that if the others pages are made this should be done. —TheNewSheik' 04:32, August 7, 2011 (UTC) Votes to Give ''Ocarina of Time Master Quest its Own Page : : I support. Not a huge section right now on the OoT page but if it has it's own page we can go into more detail about the differences and it should be fine.--[[User:Fierce Deku|'Fierce']][[User talk:Fierce Deku|'Deku']] 23:09, July 29, 2011 (UTC) : : We now have all the 3DS changes to add in there too Oni Link 23:20, July 29, 2011 (UTC) : : If it's for going into more detail about the differences, then yeah. -'Minish Link' 23:56, July 29, 2011 (UTC) : : There are quite a few differences here, so yeah. Jedimasterlink (talk) 01:07, July 30, 2011 (UTC) : : Any differences pertaining to the remake as a whole can easily be covered in a section. Anything relating to a particular item, character, or location can be covered on its corresponding page. Jedimasterlink (talk) 17:06, March 30, 2012 (UTC) : : If this gets its own page then we should give the Second Quest from LoZ its own page as its differences are comparable to that of OoT and OoT Master Quest. --Birdman5589 (talk) 04:11, July 30, 2011 (UTC) : : I'm with the good Birdman here, Master Quest is basically the Second Quest. The differences noted in its subsection works, as do the mentions and pages concerning. - McGillivray227 03:46, July 30, 2011 (UTC) : : We don't need a second article for this, it's not that big of changes. --''Jäzz '' 12:11, July 30, 2011 (UTC) : : I'm also with Birdman here, it's just a Second Quest. Only the dungeon interiors are really different and it would be weird to go into that level of detail. I don't think it's the job of the article to describe the dungeons, normal quest or master quest. Eyeball226 (talk) 13:11, July 30, 2011 (UTC) : : No. --AuronKaizer ''' 15:23, August 4, 2011 (UTC) : We already have pages for minor characters like this this one, a page for a version of a game can do no harm. —TheNewSheik' 04:32, August 7, 2011 (UTC) Votes to Give ''Ocarina of Time 3D its Own Page : : This one I support really strongly. There are lots of differences, it's way more high profile a release than something like MQ was, and I'm sure we're all sick of writing this: in the 3DS re-release of the game... --[[User:Fierce Deku|'Fierce']][[User talk:Fierce Deku|'Deku']] 23:09, July 29, 2011 (UTC) : : Almost needless to say I support Oni Link 23:20, July 29, 2011 (UTC) : : Sure, I'm for this. -'Minish Link' 23:56, July 29, 2011 (UTC) : : This one has a lot of notable differences too. Jedimasterlink (talk) 01:07, July 30, 2011 (UTC) : : Any differences pertaining to the remake as a whole can easily be covered in a section. Anything relating to a particular item, character, or location can be covered on its corresponding page. Jedimasterlink (talk) 17:06, March 30, 2012 (UTC) : : This might be the only one that might need its own page. Wait. No it doesn't. Everything that has changed can easily be covered in its subsection. --Birdman5589 (talk) 03:35, July 30, 2011 (UTC) : : As Fierce Deku said, Ocarina of Time 3D was a much more high profile release than other games, along with several new added features, certain changes to certain areas (Water Temple, for example) as well as certain achievements (bit more trivial, but, for instance, Ocarina of Time 3D was the first 3DS game to sell over a million units in its debut month). - McGillivray227 03:46, July 30, 2011 (UTC) : : Subsection it, it may be a big subsection, but it's not like we're going to die. --''Jäzz '' 12:11, July 30, 2011 (UTC) : : While it may be high profile, it's still just Ocarina of Time. I think the changes and additions should just be detailed in a subsection. Eyeball226 (talk) 13:15, July 30, 2011 (UTC) : : There are so many design changes alone, & then there's development & reception. Giving this its own page seems a more elegant solution than trying to cram it all onto the OoT page. Knives182 (talk) 09:42, July 31, 2011 (UTC) : : I don't agree that it's a good idea. It may make things easier, but that's taking the weak man's way out. --AuronKaizer ''' 15:23, August 4, 2011 (UTC) : We should do this. —TheNewSheik' 04:32, August 7, 2011 (UTC) : Even though I support that this remakes should have their own pages, I do believe we should focus the "new articles" in stating the new additions, reasons of developing and game differences instead of rewriting (remaking?) the "old pages", section like "story" should not be included at all (maybe just a link to the "old page" will do). —'TheNewSheik' 04:32, August 7, 2011 (UTC) Bump for me! Bump for you! With the last vote being '''August 7, 2011' we seriously need to call this a day and finish this. The voting is already done, we just need to get moving. :Well since none of the votes actually turned out positive all we need to do is officially declare voting closed. Oni Link 08:06, March 30, 2012 (UTC) ::I'll talk to an admin about this forum and about closing it. So... yeah. Like Jedi, I don't know what I was thinking and think that this is actually a pretty bad idea. The voting didn't turn out positive, so...yeah, let's call it a day, we'll not give the remake their own pages. I'm not sure if there's anything else we need to decide about this, but either way, if that's it, the forum can be closed. -'Minish Link' 17:01, April 2, 2012 (UTC) Can an admin make this officially closed, archived, and removed or stricken from the Actually fully finishing things forum? Thanks. --Birdman5589 (talk) 03:35, May 20, 2012 (UTC) :I don't think an admin is necessary for that, but I'll go ahead and do it. Jedimasterlink (talk) 03:53, May 20, 2012 (UTC)